Jeez Louise. Somebody is gonna do Angels In America. Da Vinci Players. Gotta put that down for late October to attend. And I read about another company getting ready with a show. Sacred Chicken Productions. That's Carrie Hill and co. working on Anton In Show Business. Opens late September in the Cabaret Theatre. The actors in Tucson are not sitting dormant. They are organizing! Like in L.A. where everyone has a screenplay in their back pocket, here everyone has an upcoming play production in their back pocket. Not to mention all these lunchtime and latenight shows, and workshops everywhere you look. Shakespeare in the park, Borderlands Theatre season announcement, fifteen actors needed for a play reading. Examples.
Thank the Good Lord for William Dell and the Tucson Stage List what with all this activity going on.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Change
I asked, almost innocently, one of the actresses from Odin Teatret, a woman who had dedicated more than forty years to making and keeping this one Theatre (Odin) alive, what it was that prompted her to want to "go out and change the world" with her art, her work. She replied directly and simply "I did not intend to change the world. I intended to change myself."
For those of you unfamiliar, Odin is a "Temple," a "Monastery." The work begins early in the mornings and ends late in the evening. "The work on Oneself," and "The Work on Ones Craft." Change, growth, mastery, continuum. Change, growth, mastery, continuum.
The change she and her colleagues at Odin have affected in the world is without question. Their contribution to the world of theatre and art the same. But she says she started (and ends) with herself. It is cliche, but profound and true. She is one of the actresses that you see in the early training films of Odin Teatret. In the daily regimen of physical exercise in a remote corner of Denmark, I doubt she ever fully imagined what it would all amount to.
These thoughts and images bring me to my question. How does an actors body change and grow in specifics with their art, their craft? I will leave alone for now thought and personality, perspective, view and knowledge as these are particular to individual and circumstance. I will isolate on the physical body.
I worked for several years with actors whose bodies were considered disabled, whose bodies had sections that did not move with prompting from that individual or moved involuntarily, etc. Some used wheelchairs to enable mobility. I've worked with actors skilled in various forms of dance, mime, martial arts and other disciplines. I've worked with large bodies and small bodies. In other words, I recognize and acknowledge a fantastic and seemingly never ending array of "bodies" that come with an actor.
In Actor's Gymnasium, we often begin sessions with the "walk around the room." At a glance during this simple walking by everyone, it is easy to see who is moving initially with self-awareness, or self-consciousness, who has their attention outside of themselves, on others, who seems "comfortable," who seems "uncomfortable." Then we give simple instructions such as "be aware of your the motion of your arms, full range from shoulder down through your fingers." Again at a glance it is easy to see who makes this adjustment and how that adjustment in attention affects everything else that is happening with their body. Then we may for example ask them to elongate their stride, prompting an awareness of the fact that the walking is a balance-unbalance-balance activity. The overall reactions of bodies varies again. Some become "playful" with this principle, some become "cautious." We see the workings of respiratory systems.
Then we add the "fiction," the circumstance, by asking people to walk (still keeping the elongated stride) as if the floor was a bouncy surface that pushed back against your own weight and pressure. Now we see for the first time what to me is the most important aspect of how an actor's body functions - that is how it responds to the craftwork commands placed on it by the mind. This is Stanislavsky's part two of An Actor's Work On Oneself, seeing that those commands are embodied properly and consistently. In otherwords, the actors daily mind knows that the floor is a hard, flat wooden surface and through habit the body is still reacting and functioning with that information. But the actor is now creating a secondary command or set of information suggesting to the body that the floor is spongy, bouncy. The actor may set this command in motion one of several ways, by visual image or sense memory for example. The actor's body is now going to follow primarily either the daily mind (hard wooden surface) or the craftwork (spongy, bouncy). Ideally it embodies the craftwork command. Through time and work the relationship between the physical body and these craftwork commands by the mind based on fictional circumstance, becomes synchronous and mutually inspiring. In that state we say the actors behavior is "organic," meaning it just seems to be happening easily without conflict from daily mind commands or improper logic of craftwork commands.
Actors whose bodies are rhythmically sound and variable, who recognize balance and initiation of movement, are without excessive and unnecessary tension (relaxed), not slave to habit, and are sensorally active, to me have a greater chance of fully and consistently responding to and developing a relationship to the commands made upon it by the craftwork.
Overall health and stamina certainly has to be factored in as well. In previous posts I mentioned actors who were unable to breathe and get enough air necessary for the action of the play. I mentioned actors whose physical bodies just seemed "broken down," unable to endure the duration of a play, a run. Even twenty minute segments of Actor's Gymnasium sessions have left several attendees gasping for air and/or not coming back for more. It happens. Some actors take it as a sign to work on developing their body and some give up or don't care and go away.
All of the actors who regularly attended Actor's Gymnasium had or have developed outstanding bodies. None of us are ready for triathlons or anything like that but we can keep our bodies highly invigorated for the two hours that we work. Change has been noticeable - Freedom with the body hand in hand with freedom of our minds, our ability to create.
For those of you unfamiliar, Odin is a "Temple," a "Monastery." The work begins early in the mornings and ends late in the evening. "The work on Oneself," and "The Work on Ones Craft." Change, growth, mastery, continuum. Change, growth, mastery, continuum.
The change she and her colleagues at Odin have affected in the world is without question. Their contribution to the world of theatre and art the same. But she says she started (and ends) with herself. It is cliche, but profound and true. She is one of the actresses that you see in the early training films of Odin Teatret. In the daily regimen of physical exercise in a remote corner of Denmark, I doubt she ever fully imagined what it would all amount to.
These thoughts and images bring me to my question. How does an actors body change and grow in specifics with their art, their craft? I will leave alone for now thought and personality, perspective, view and knowledge as these are particular to individual and circumstance. I will isolate on the physical body.
I worked for several years with actors whose bodies were considered disabled, whose bodies had sections that did not move with prompting from that individual or moved involuntarily, etc. Some used wheelchairs to enable mobility. I've worked with actors skilled in various forms of dance, mime, martial arts and other disciplines. I've worked with large bodies and small bodies. In other words, I recognize and acknowledge a fantastic and seemingly never ending array of "bodies" that come with an actor.
In Actor's Gymnasium, we often begin sessions with the "walk around the room." At a glance during this simple walking by everyone, it is easy to see who is moving initially with self-awareness, or self-consciousness, who has their attention outside of themselves, on others, who seems "comfortable," who seems "uncomfortable." Then we give simple instructions such as "be aware of your the motion of your arms, full range from shoulder down through your fingers." Again at a glance it is easy to see who makes this adjustment and how that adjustment in attention affects everything else that is happening with their body. Then we may for example ask them to elongate their stride, prompting an awareness of the fact that the walking is a balance-unbalance-balance activity. The overall reactions of bodies varies again. Some become "playful" with this principle, some become "cautious." We see the workings of respiratory systems.
Then we add the "fiction," the circumstance, by asking people to walk (still keeping the elongated stride) as if the floor was a bouncy surface that pushed back against your own weight and pressure. Now we see for the first time what to me is the most important aspect of how an actor's body functions - that is how it responds to the craftwork commands placed on it by the mind. This is Stanislavsky's part two of An Actor's Work On Oneself, seeing that those commands are embodied properly and consistently. In otherwords, the actors daily mind knows that the floor is a hard, flat wooden surface and through habit the body is still reacting and functioning with that information. But the actor is now creating a secondary command or set of information suggesting to the body that the floor is spongy, bouncy. The actor may set this command in motion one of several ways, by visual image or sense memory for example. The actor's body is now going to follow primarily either the daily mind (hard wooden surface) or the craftwork (spongy, bouncy). Ideally it embodies the craftwork command. Through time and work the relationship between the physical body and these craftwork commands by the mind based on fictional circumstance, becomes synchronous and mutually inspiring. In that state we say the actors behavior is "organic," meaning it just seems to be happening easily without conflict from daily mind commands or improper logic of craftwork commands.
Actors whose bodies are rhythmically sound and variable, who recognize balance and initiation of movement, are without excessive and unnecessary tension (relaxed), not slave to habit, and are sensorally active, to me have a greater chance of fully and consistently responding to and developing a relationship to the commands made upon it by the craftwork.
Overall health and stamina certainly has to be factored in as well. In previous posts I mentioned actors who were unable to breathe and get enough air necessary for the action of the play. I mentioned actors whose physical bodies just seemed "broken down," unable to endure the duration of a play, a run. Even twenty minute segments of Actor's Gymnasium sessions have left several attendees gasping for air and/or not coming back for more. It happens. Some actors take it as a sign to work on developing their body and some give up or don't care and go away.
All of the actors who regularly attended Actor's Gymnasium had or have developed outstanding bodies. None of us are ready for triathlons or anything like that but we can keep our bodies highly invigorated for the two hours that we work. Change has been noticeable - Freedom with the body hand in hand with freedom of our minds, our ability to create.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Dance and Sing like Michael Jackson
In Chicago with Cactus Theatre and later in Tucson with Tucson Art Theatre, we used to do rehearsals just before opening that we sometimes called "singing rehearsals." When most actors or companies would be putting the final mechanical touches on things like blocking and pacing and all that, we were cutting loose! And I mean cutting loose! With the craziest and wildest kind of rehearsals of singing and dancing our way through the action. We did these for several reasons that I'll get into later. What I want to mention though is that we were sometimes given images, ideas or people to refer to as we sang and danced. On more than one occasion I was given Michael Jackson. "Do all your part like Michael Jackson singing." Ok, what the hell. And several minutes into it inevitably I would find myself ripping through it - the best I could - intense, dramatic, hands with flair, distinct, spinning, slapping, all that. The reheasals among other things freed us up physically and sometime emotionally, helped us to break our habits, find new rhythms, have a hell of a lot of fun, etc.
More recently I had been working to prepare an original play with an extremely talented performer, an opera singer and actress and wonderful person. We did not get to far in the work but one of the sections was to have an autobiographical piece about herself. Where when she was young, she always wanted to dance with one particular boy at the dances when the song "Dancing Machine" came on. In real life she never did. He was the great dancer and she was the wallflower at that time. I was to play the dancer doing the Michael Jackson moves to that song. Well, I practiced in my small kitchen at the time for like two weeks. I even invited my nephew over to give me some pointers and show me some additional moves.
At the Stanislavsky and Theatre talks I did a while back (not the most recent ones) I had that CD playing with Dancing Machine and I kept telling Esther that when she introduced me to turn on that song and I would come out dancing - lol. Never did it though for real. But I still want to.
More recently I had been working to prepare an original play with an extremely talented performer, an opera singer and actress and wonderful person. We did not get to far in the work but one of the sections was to have an autobiographical piece about herself. Where when she was young, she always wanted to dance with one particular boy at the dances when the song "Dancing Machine" came on. In real life she never did. He was the great dancer and she was the wallflower at that time. I was to play the dancer doing the Michael Jackson moves to that song. Well, I practiced in my small kitchen at the time for like two weeks. I even invited my nephew over to give me some pointers and show me some additional moves.
At the Stanislavsky and Theatre talks I did a while back (not the most recent ones) I had that CD playing with Dancing Machine and I kept telling Esther that when she introduced me to turn on that song and I would come out dancing - lol. Never did it though for real. But I still want to.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Follow-up from Patrick - Theatre of Cruelty
Many thanks to David for his posting and explanation of the "theatre ofcruelty," which was clear, succinct, and sensible. It prompted me to go to the source, Antonin Artaud, and what I found in his "No More Masterpieces" was both good and not so good.To begin positively, it's always a good idea, I think, to bring Shakespeare downa notch: "Shakespeare himself is responsible for this aberration and decline,this disinterested idea of the theater which wishes a theatrical performance toleave the public intact, without setting off one image that will shake theorganism to its foundations and leave an ineffaceable scar." Out of context, Imight agree with him (considering how, were William around today, I wouldn't besurprised to find him voting Republican) but Artaud's context is one ofdecrying plays that probe human pyschology, something he dates back to theRenaissance, with its emphasis on "purely descriptive and narrativetheater---storytelling pyschology." He elaborates, "If in Shakespeare, a manis sometimes preoccupied with what transcends him, it is always in order todetermine the ultimate consequences of this preoccupation with him, i.e.pyschology." Artaud attributes to this tendency the theatre's "abasement andits fearful loss of energy" and finds that "both the theater and we ourselveshave had enough of psychology." It's worth considering, and I wonder whatothers make of this."But this is not our most serious concern." Artaud goes after, among otherthings, art for art's sake (his essay is from the late 30's), what he calls"detached art," and written poetry ("Written poetry is worth reading once, andthen should be destroyed") because these things have made artifacts (my word)of art, when instead, the "action" of art (as in great live theater) "is nevermade the same way twice." According to Artaud, "It is a question of knowingwhat we want." Given his low regard for the public, though, I'm not sure which'we' he intends.As for the not so good: Artaud, it seems, is a bit of nut. (And he doesn'twrite so well, either.) At the same time that he wants to eschew "masterpieces"(because they are static) he wants to return "by present day means to thissuperior idea of poetry and poetry-through-theater which underlies Myths [hiscapitalization] told by the ancient Greek tragedians . . . " Now, I realizehe's calling new writing instead of revivals. Still, I wonder why he resortsto these paradigms if it weren't inherently true that "masterpieces" havesomething to show us.What Artaud wants is a kind of religious experience akin to voodoo: "I proposeto return through the theater to an idea of the physical knowledge of imagesand the means of inducing trances . . . " We are taught that the ancientsaccomplished this at Delphi. And while improvisation and extemporaneity and"magical mimesis of a gesture" account for much of voodoo's (and greattheatre's) power, these are achieved in each instance with existing"texts"--not to mention rituals.Great art of any sort must break through a duality: of form(s) both fixed andfluid. Artaud weighs in heavily on the latter, but as if this weren't informedby the former. His essay is an example. Did he intend to utter it once andleave it at that? If so, why write it down at all
Go-go clubs and brewerys - my sure fire plan.
Yes, I am going on Monday to the meeting about how to revitalize downtown and the arts -"Building the New Pueblo." Ho hum. The announcement says our feedback is "crucial to the process." Ho ho hum. Let me guess, we need to be culturally rich, and there is going to be something about economic development in very broad and general terms. Oh yes, I was right! Look it says in the announcement "Glenn Lyons, CEO of the Downtown Partnership, will reveal his strategy behind recruiting private investment into Downtown as part of the larger picture of ensuring an economically strong and culturally rich city core." Wow. Well, some things never change in twenty years or so.
Actually I am only partly jaded. I don't know Glenn Lyons but I am looking forward to meeting him and hearing what he has to say. My mind is open. I will say that most good plans that I know of, those that actually come to fruition, no matter how they were developed, whether by a single individual or by committee, are specific in their purpose, intention and activity. There has never been such an animal from any organization regarding downtown. At least among those I have seen and read over the years. I have seen plans of vagaries aplenty. And none of those have come close to any kind of actualization or to even getting started. Hopefully Mr. Lyons is striving for specifics.
If I get a chance to give my suggestions I will. But not in the form of a survey. Those things are always skewered to get a certain result and give justification to something already intended. I refuse. I'm only partly jaded though. I have two large ideas and a bunch of small ones to offer. Number one on the large ideas is get rid of all those buildings built in the 70's. Spare no expense, leave no stone unturned, use any means necessary but get rid of them. They are uuuugggglllllllyyyyyyy. They are no ones architectural or aesthetic dream come true, nor will they ever be. Second on the large list is bring in nature. I don't mean like hip "urban kind of nature." I mean real nature. Tucson has something that cities this large do not have, unless they are built next to a lake or an ocean - nature within a mile of the downtown district. The Tucson Mountain Park is right there. Its just one, two miles at the most away - this large, natural area. That's an amazing thing and could be an amazing start for a real plan to incorporate nature. Factor in the Santa Cruz river and the start is even better. City hall must represent democracy on the inside, bio-diversity on the outside. And the relationship of those two notions should be made specific and evident. And the plan would move from there.
But what of the Arts and what of Theatre? Yes we want them. But not at the expense of brewerys and go-go clubs! Let's keep our priorities! Well, what do people go downtown for? In the evenings I mean. Monday nights now there is a walk/run social event. Its a nice thing. Tuesday is "Tuesday night bicycle ride." Its a nice thing - unless you are the motorist waiting to turn left when the procession is passing. There is Hotel Congress and the all ages shows at the Rialto. A sprinkling of a few other small bars and restaurants. And...thats it. Except for the shows at Temple of Music and Art, Convention Center and Beowulf Alley Theatre Co. I like all that but that means there are no sporting events (some dummies built the baseball stadium somewhere but not downtown where it should have been), no mainstream movies (the Fox does not count),
no nature events, no bowling alleys or pool halls, no clothes shopping, or shopping of any kind really, no classes of any kind, no unique atmosphere anywhere. So, yes, I think we should have arts and theatres. What the heck. They have as good a chance as anything there in being "culturally rich and economically strong."
I'll be there on Monday.
Actually I am only partly jaded. I don't know Glenn Lyons but I am looking forward to meeting him and hearing what he has to say. My mind is open. I will say that most good plans that I know of, those that actually come to fruition, no matter how they were developed, whether by a single individual or by committee, are specific in their purpose, intention and activity. There has never been such an animal from any organization regarding downtown. At least among those I have seen and read over the years. I have seen plans of vagaries aplenty. And none of those have come close to any kind of actualization or to even getting started. Hopefully Mr. Lyons is striving for specifics.
If I get a chance to give my suggestions I will. But not in the form of a survey. Those things are always skewered to get a certain result and give justification to something already intended. I refuse. I'm only partly jaded though. I have two large ideas and a bunch of small ones to offer. Number one on the large ideas is get rid of all those buildings built in the 70's. Spare no expense, leave no stone unturned, use any means necessary but get rid of them. They are uuuugggglllllllyyyyyyy. They are no ones architectural or aesthetic dream come true, nor will they ever be. Second on the large list is bring in nature. I don't mean like hip "urban kind of nature." I mean real nature. Tucson has something that cities this large do not have, unless they are built next to a lake or an ocean - nature within a mile of the downtown district. The Tucson Mountain Park is right there. Its just one, two miles at the most away - this large, natural area. That's an amazing thing and could be an amazing start for a real plan to incorporate nature. Factor in the Santa Cruz river and the start is even better. City hall must represent democracy on the inside, bio-diversity on the outside. And the relationship of those two notions should be made specific and evident. And the plan would move from there.
But what of the Arts and what of Theatre? Yes we want them. But not at the expense of brewerys and go-go clubs! Let's keep our priorities! Well, what do people go downtown for? In the evenings I mean. Monday nights now there is a walk/run social event. Its a nice thing. Tuesday is "Tuesday night bicycle ride." Its a nice thing - unless you are the motorist waiting to turn left when the procession is passing. There is Hotel Congress and the all ages shows at the Rialto. A sprinkling of a few other small bars and restaurants. And...thats it. Except for the shows at Temple of Music and Art, Convention Center and Beowulf Alley Theatre Co. I like all that but that means there are no sporting events (some dummies built the baseball stadium somewhere but not downtown where it should have been), no mainstream movies (the Fox does not count),
no nature events, no bowling alleys or pool halls, no clothes shopping, or shopping of any kind really, no classes of any kind, no unique atmosphere anywhere. So, yes, I think we should have arts and theatres. What the heck. They have as good a chance as anything there in being "culturally rich and economically strong."
I'll be there on Monday.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
There Are No Small Parts!
Oh yes there are. I have played some small parts in my life. Spearcarrier? Yep, in a four hour full script production of Hamlet. The pain of waiting was excruciating - onstage and off. Other shows I had like one, two, maybe three lines and about a minute of total stage time within a two-hour show. In one Jacobean drama I had a bigger role but in the fourth act (or was it the fifth or sixth?) when everyone is getting killed in a bloody display, I remember laying there, "dead," looking up, waiting for everyone else to get killed and waiting for the long speech at the end to be over. Terrible. The things you have to do to keep your mind body and spirit into it makes you disciplined or wears you out. Flat out.
Over time I played in bigger roles so to speak. And in productions that were fitting to my beliefs and desires. I enjoyed that. Relished it.
Nowadays though, when someone approaches me about acting I tell them I can play a small part - you know the kind where you don't really have to work to learn lines and all that. Laziness I guess. I've kept myself "in shape" though over the last three years with workshops and classes and personal efforts. The keys for the actor, relaxation, concentration, ability to be alive with the senses, all that is there with stamina. Work on my body, rhythm and sound has been consistent through Actor's Gymnasium. My ability to improvise and work in rehearsal is as good as ever.
I'm not advertising myself or yearning to act. But certain things become a way of life for actors, especially those like myself who enjoy the challenge and the most artful aspects of it. We seek a certain precision and therefore routines are developed to achieve or reach for that. I see this attitude come about in others I work with both "old" and "young" and there is a profound difference in the quality of their acting vs others who do not possess it. Call it spunk, or zest, or inspiration or more likely love - that creative joy, ardor, for which there is no substitution. Amongst those kind of people there really aren't the small parts that are suffocating. There is only that continuous effort to put the whole thing together. Among those people, you are working on a play, not just a part.
But I'll never forget all those hours backstage waiting. Goodnight! That took some work to wait like that!
Over time I played in bigger roles so to speak. And in productions that were fitting to my beliefs and desires. I enjoyed that. Relished it.
Nowadays though, when someone approaches me about acting I tell them I can play a small part - you know the kind where you don't really have to work to learn lines and all that. Laziness I guess. I've kept myself "in shape" though over the last three years with workshops and classes and personal efforts. The keys for the actor, relaxation, concentration, ability to be alive with the senses, all that is there with stamina. Work on my body, rhythm and sound has been consistent through Actor's Gymnasium. My ability to improvise and work in rehearsal is as good as ever.
I'm not advertising myself or yearning to act. But certain things become a way of life for actors, especially those like myself who enjoy the challenge and the most artful aspects of it. We seek a certain precision and therefore routines are developed to achieve or reach for that. I see this attitude come about in others I work with both "old" and "young" and there is a profound difference in the quality of their acting vs others who do not possess it. Call it spunk, or zest, or inspiration or more likely love - that creative joy, ardor, for which there is no substitution. Amongst those kind of people there really aren't the small parts that are suffocating. There is only that continuous effort to put the whole thing together. Among those people, you are working on a play, not just a part.
But I'll never forget all those hours backstage waiting. Goodnight! That took some work to wait like that!
Monday, June 22, 2009
Vaudeville
Last year the University of Arizona Library, Special Collections received a very large and important donation of material from the American Vaudeville Museum in Boston. Thanks to David Soren in the Classics Department (if that Dept. still exists) who was a Vaudevillian performer as a kid, and others, UA was chosen over Harvard to receive the collection of some four thousand items.
At the time, I happened to be reprising my brief turn as "The Italian Director" (a true bit of comic genius) in one of the Cabaret Boheme shows. Frank Cullen (I believe his name was), one of the curators from the Museum and also a vaudeville performer of sorts, came by to watch our last dress rehearsal. Esther, Cindy, Jolene, April, Pip, Bryan, Sophia, Miguel and the other real performers of Cabaret Boheme put on quite a show that night, even in the small rehearsal space.
Wouldn't it be great tonight if I started the "Stanislavsky in America" presentation talking about Vaudeville? That would surprise people - what the heck. If I am tracing the lines of work through America and some even back to Tucson it might be worth a try. The Vaudeville one might not be complete or might be a stretch or it might not be legitimate. I don't know. I would have to do a little research between now and tonight.
At one time in Russia, during the hey-day of the Moscow Art Theatre, it was forbidden during Lent for theatres to have performances. So actors and others during that time would get together and put together cabaret and vaudeville shows to entertain themselves. They took the name cabbage parties - because they ate a lot of cabbage during Lent. Hey, Stanislavsky has a whole chapter on this in "My Life in Art." Anyway, there a was friend of the Moscow Art Theatre, a want to be serious actor named Nikita Balieff. He begged and begged to be in some shows and eventually got some small parts (yea, yea, I know...there are no small parts only small actors...). But apparently he was one of those guys who couldn't keep a straight face and just made people laugh by his looks and presence. Therefore, he found himself as the main organizer and director of the cabbage parties for the Moscow Art Theatre. Eventually, they got an actual space for these performances and it was called "The Bat." As the Moscow Art Theatre had the emblem of The Seagull on its curtain, this place had one that looked just like that except it was a bat. The place became a famous after hours joint for artists and actors. It became the place to go for fun for visitors to Moscow at that time. Many of the most famous actors of the MAT and other theatres performed there on occasion.
Come the revolution and Balieff like so many had to leave Russia. Eventually he reorganized "The Bat" in Paris and Prague and Berlin and other cities around Europe. And finally in America, in New York. When Stanislavsky and the MAT came to perform in America, they went to The Bat club to see and participate again in the performances. For a stretch of time then "The Bat" was a happening place in New York with its Vaudeville and Cabaret Performances.
I'll have to make this work tonight somehow in a quick five minutes!
At the time, I happened to be reprising my brief turn as "The Italian Director" (a true bit of comic genius) in one of the Cabaret Boheme shows. Frank Cullen (I believe his name was), one of the curators from the Museum and also a vaudeville performer of sorts, came by to watch our last dress rehearsal. Esther, Cindy, Jolene, April, Pip, Bryan, Sophia, Miguel and the other real performers of Cabaret Boheme put on quite a show that night, even in the small rehearsal space.
Wouldn't it be great tonight if I started the "Stanislavsky in America" presentation talking about Vaudeville? That would surprise people - what the heck. If I am tracing the lines of work through America and some even back to Tucson it might be worth a try. The Vaudeville one might not be complete or might be a stretch or it might not be legitimate. I don't know. I would have to do a little research between now and tonight.
At one time in Russia, during the hey-day of the Moscow Art Theatre, it was forbidden during Lent for theatres to have performances. So actors and others during that time would get together and put together cabaret and vaudeville shows to entertain themselves. They took the name cabbage parties - because they ate a lot of cabbage during Lent. Hey, Stanislavsky has a whole chapter on this in "My Life in Art." Anyway, there a was friend of the Moscow Art Theatre, a want to be serious actor named Nikita Balieff. He begged and begged to be in some shows and eventually got some small parts (yea, yea, I know...there are no small parts only small actors...). But apparently he was one of those guys who couldn't keep a straight face and just made people laugh by his looks and presence. Therefore, he found himself as the main organizer and director of the cabbage parties for the Moscow Art Theatre. Eventually, they got an actual space for these performances and it was called "The Bat." As the Moscow Art Theatre had the emblem of The Seagull on its curtain, this place had one that looked just like that except it was a bat. The place became a famous after hours joint for artists and actors. It became the place to go for fun for visitors to Moscow at that time. Many of the most famous actors of the MAT and other theatres performed there on occasion.
Come the revolution and Balieff like so many had to leave Russia. Eventually he reorganized "The Bat" in Paris and Prague and Berlin and other cities around Europe. And finally in America, in New York. When Stanislavsky and the MAT came to perform in America, they went to The Bat club to see and participate again in the performances. For a stretch of time then "The Bat" was a happening place in New York with its Vaudeville and Cabaret Performances.
I'll have to make this work tonight somehow in a quick five minutes!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Big Boat
Sometimes the boat sent to help or rescue is a little bitty boat. In which case you might not see it and miss it. And sometimes the boat is a big giant one. In which case you can't miss it. Can you?
Stanislavsky had a chart that he developed and sometimes used as a teaching tool in explaining his "System." Now a chart is just a chart. It is representational of some inter-working ideas and is meant, by its visual nature, to put the relationship of these ideas in working perspective. As is necessary with any good chart, Stanislavsky's requires a little explanation - the fun part.
Keep in mind Stanislavsky's chart and its ideas are representative of his kind of theatre, his kind of acting. Stanislavsky often in writings or talks distinguished three kinds of theatres and the acting of each type. The first one would be like the false and cliche ridden type. The second would be the kind that is a skilled presentation of what life looks and sounds like, but is not really alive itself. This is the most common type of theatre, of acting. The third is the type of acting and theatre that actually acquires its own life, literally. This type of theatre is very, very rare and is the kind that Stanislavsky sought.
Two notes about that quick description. One, Stanislavsky knew and said there could be and is overlap between the three. Its not always a clear and definitive matter in that regard. Two, having "life" does not necessarily mean realism in terms of theatrical style. I mention that because many people for some reason assume that Stanislavsky equates with realism only. Silly people.
I ain't going over the whole chart in this post (even though I would like to) but I want to cover the three foundational elements, the three foundational qualities on the chart. The chart btw, which I can't fully reproduce here because I don't have it in the proper electronic format, is a cool little drawing with words and images. Removing the images, as some people do in their translations/explanations, takes away a significance. I will try later to reproduce it here properly so you can see this if you haven't seen it before. (Some of you though have copies hanging in your bedrooms I bet). At the bottom of the chart are three blocks so to speak, the foundations of the System, its reason for being.
Stanislavsky had a chart that he developed and sometimes used as a teaching tool in explaining his "System." Now a chart is just a chart. It is representational of some inter-working ideas and is meant, by its visual nature, to put the relationship of these ideas in working perspective. As is necessary with any good chart, Stanislavsky's requires a little explanation - the fun part.
Keep in mind Stanislavsky's chart and its ideas are representative of his kind of theatre, his kind of acting. Stanislavsky often in writings or talks distinguished three kinds of theatres and the acting of each type. The first one would be like the false and cliche ridden type. The second would be the kind that is a skilled presentation of what life looks and sounds like, but is not really alive itself. This is the most common type of theatre, of acting. The third is the type of acting and theatre that actually acquires its own life, literally. This type of theatre is very, very rare and is the kind that Stanislavsky sought.
Two notes about that quick description. One, Stanislavsky knew and said there could be and is overlap between the three. Its not always a clear and definitive matter in that regard. Two, having "life" does not necessarily mean realism in terms of theatrical style. I mention that because many people for some reason assume that Stanislavsky equates with realism only. Silly people.
I ain't going over the whole chart in this post (even though I would like to) but I want to cover the three foundational elements, the three foundational qualities on the chart. The chart btw, which I can't fully reproduce here because I don't have it in the proper electronic format, is a cool little drawing with words and images. Removing the images, as some people do in their translations/explanations, takes away a significance. I will try later to reproduce it here properly so you can see this if you haven't seen it before. (Some of you though have copies hanging in your bedrooms I bet). At the bottom of the chart are three blocks so to speak, the foundations of the System, its reason for being.
The first one, the cornerstone on the left side, says "aktivnost,deistvenost." (I am using English language characters to approximate the Russian in unofficial form for the moment). Before I explain more, let me mention that there is often criticism of Elizabeth Hapgood Reynolds, Stanislavsky's original English translator for the books An Actors Prepares, Building a Character, and Creating a Role - the titles as we know of them here. The rap is that the books are misleading, confusing, incomplete, too abridged, etc. Anyone reading them, young actors for example, are likely to be unsure of what to make of the material they say. I wonder then, if it has gotten any easier over the years what with all the new material available to us all in terms of actual work and history to put more precise translation into place. Lets take three of our current popular Stanislavsky Scholars who have published copies (or approximations) of the chart we are referring to in their books and see how they translate this first foundational block. Sharon Carnicke calls it "Dynamism." Jean Benedetti calls it "Physical Action." And Rose Whyman calls it "Activeness." Hmm. I don't think its going out on a limb to say it hasn't gotten any easier - at least for the young actors trying to grasp it -trying to make sense of these various terms in translation.
I will digress a little further for the moment and say that in the interpretations/translations of that one item, the foundational block of the chart, you can see the overall bias and personality of each of those scholars clearly. Sharon Carnicke's book is filled with trendy jargon and terms and popular concepts, from the late eighties and nineties in the original issue and from the two-thousands in the new reissue of her book "Stanislavsky in Focus." There is even a section called "Flow" in the original and a new chapter on Yoga in the new reissue. (One funny note about the chapter on Yoga, it's very first sentence is completely wrong and totally misleading). Under Carnicke, Stanislavsky becomes confusing hip hogwash. Jean Beneditti on the other hand has a knack for removing all complexities, details, and soulfulness from Stanislavsky's work. If you like things dry, see Benedetti. He is one who for example, takes out the images of the chart, leaving only the words in their most isolated and mundane interpretation - in this case "physical action."
If you are Stanislavsky, are you going to lay one cornerstone, one reason for being, of your very rare form of theatre as "dynamism" or "physical action?" Of course not. No one can decipher "dynamism" even with plenty of talk around it. And every theatre and acting has "physical action." That does not distinguish anything at all. Rose Whyman, our third scholar in this example, calls it "Activeness" and offers one of Stanislavsky's brief descriptions "The art of the dramatic actor is the art of internal and external action." Closer. But I think you, I or Stanislavsky would still have a difficult time rousing anyone to our cause if that was all we had for one of our cornerstones. It is by far the the most complete and logical of the three though.
I'm skipping to the second cornerstone before I offer more explanation of the first because the second is just too good of an example to wait any longer. The second cornerstone block on the right side of the chart says "aphorism Pushkin." Or as we would say in English "Pushkin's aphorism." Both Sharon Carnicke and Jean Benedetti tell us this is "given circumstances." They list it as "i.e. given circumstances." Now every actor knows what "given circumstances" are -facts about the characters or the play. So for now we have from Sharon Carnicke "dynamisn" and "given circumstances" and from Jean Benedetti we have "physical action" and "given circumstances." Neither of them actually tells us which aphorism of Pushkins Stanislavsky might be referring to or what that aphorism actually is or says in full. It is as follows: "The truth concerning the passions, a verisimilitude of feelings experienced in given situations - that is what our intelligence demands of a dramatist." That is how Rose Whyman interpets it. In other interpretations of that quote you may see "reason" in place of "intelligence" for example and other small changes, but the point is Whyman gives us the complete thing. Stanislavsky changed it from writer or dramatist to actor. In its completeness it refers to much more and means much more than mere "given circumstances."
Back to the first block. The first word in the block does refer to "activity." It harkens back to the Greek word for "drama" and "to do." The second word in the block refers to "dramatic action" but with an implication of effectiveness or effective dramatic action. The question then is what constitutes or signals effective dramatic action for Stanislavsky. In his description of the three types of theatres, three types of acting, Stanislavsky says that in the first one the activity of the actor works on the periphery of the spectator, perhaps makes him laugh or wince. In the second one the activity of the actor creates "special people," ones that spectators recognize and admire and eventually accommodate themselves to conditionally. "The actors depict the images and passions created by the poet." The influence of the actors activity on the spectator is deeper and more profound than in the first type of theatre. Afterward spectators will go out and talk about what they have seen. The activity of the actor in the third type of theatre is completely different and is the type of activity that Stanislavsky is referring to in the block. The activity of the third theatre stirs the soul of the spectator and the souls of each of the actors all together. Afterwards, spectators want to go home and think about what they have experienced. Stanislavsky describes this activity of the actor as harmonious, sound, natural and simple and says the beauty of such creations lies in their integrity He also explains that that the noble feelings take preponderance over the petty ones and this relation of noble to petty is preserved in the very manner of projection of the emotion and in the outer proportions of the characters.
Dramatic action comprised of noble activity that stirs the soul - that's the summary of what makes effective dramatic action as far as Stanislavsky is concerned. Its not totally concrete but its not yet supposed to be. The rest of the chart is for that. These foundational blocks are to indicate this third type of theate, its characteristics, its qualities, that Stanislavsky is seeking. If we now put this understanding of effective dramatic action together with Pushkin's full aphorism, we start to have a better picture of what Stanislavsky is after here - and it obviously ain't just physical action and given circumstances.
Stanislavsky goes so far as to say that those who engage in the second kind of theatre, which he speaks highly of really, do not truly believe that the third kind of theatre can actually exist. It would be too real they say. The thoughts and feelings of the actors would be too alive and they would get carried away and jump over the footlights. Stanislavsky dispels that myth and goes on to explain just how an actor can have such strong living and real feelings and thoughts and continue with every step of the way to be in complete control of their art.
Two blocks down and what's emerging for the actor is not your everyday acting tasks. The third foundational block, the center piece, says the "Subconscious through the Conscious." I believe Jean Benedetti wishes this part had never happened. He translates this "through the conscious to the unconscious." Un vs Sub is a subtle bastardization and makes it sound like the actor is going to go into a deep sleep. Sharon Carnicke translates it as "The Subconscious by means of the Conscious." Not bad really. She errs considerably though when she compares the chart at large to a Chakra chart in her zest to put all of Stanislavsky in an "Eastern" context. It makes for a completely confusing view of the chart as a whole. Rose Whyman translate the block as "the subconscious creativity of nature itself - through the artist's conscious psycho-technique." The first part is weird how she has it worded. She actually means that creativity is subconscious in its nature for artists - and that through conscious work in psycho-physical activity the creative subconscious mind of the artist is activated. At least I hope she means that because that what Stanislavsky had in mind, and with a few more additional thoughts to go along with it.
I am going to offer a long quote from Evgeny Vakhtangov, Stanislavky's pupil, one of his favorite actors and teachers of his ideas. This quote best summarizes and describes this phenomenon of subconscious creativity for the actor that Stanislavsky embraced. Here it is, from Vakhtangov's journal:
The conscious mind never creates anything. It is the subconscious mind that is creative. Apart from the subconscious mind's independent ability to make selections without the conscious mind being aware of it, it can receive material for creation through the conscious mind. In this sense, no rehearsal can be productive unless it seeks or provides material for the next rehearsal; it is in the intervals between rehearsals that the creative work of processing material received is carried out in the subconscious. Nothing can be created from nothing, which is why no role can be played simply "by inspiration," without work being put in.
Inspiration is the moment when the subconscious mind has combined the material from the previous work and, without the participation of the conscious mind - simply when called upon to do so by the latter - moulds everything into form.
The fire that accompanies this moment is a natural state, as natural as heat produced during the fusion of several chemical elements.
Mental elements, combined into a form accessible to the given individual, give rise to an influx of energy at the moment of revelation. It brings warmth, light and spirit to the form. Everything consciously thought-out lacks this fire. Everything created in the subconscious and formed unconsciously is accompanied by the discharge of this energy, this is also infectious.
It is infectiousness, i.e. the unconscious enthusiasm of the subconscious mind of the perceiver, that is the sign of talent.
He who consciously nourishes the subconscious and unconsciously reveals the results of the working of the subconscious mind is truly talented.
He who unconsciously nourishes the subconscious and unconsciously reveals its results is a genius.
He who does this consciously is a master.
He who is without the ability to consciously or unconsciously apprehend and yet dares to create lacks any talent for he has no face of his own. For dipping nothing into the subconscious mind, the sphere of creativity, he comes up with nothing.
In that description you see the combinations, the relationships of this idea to the other two blocks - the infectiousness of the moment of inspiration - the perciever, the spectator becoming subconsciously enthused themselves - soul to soul dramatic action so to speak - moulded into form - as Pushkin's aphorism insists. (What Vakhtangov wrote in his journal there is a clear case of a student grasping fully and deeply Stanislavsky's ideas and making them his own).
Well, that is a lot of information in this post to leave you with. The last thing to mention again are those boats. Stanislavsky was one of those people who kept sending bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more and more boats along - just in case - as needed - with his writing, his teaching, his work.
Hope to see everyone again this Monday night at 730 pm at Prescott College!
Friday, June 19, 2009
We Have No Fear But Fear Itself
And a few ticket prices.
I won't make it to see "Commander Hastings, murder at the equator" at Top Hat Theatre Club but I hope to see "Fireside Chats With FDR" there soon. James Gooden will re-create those famous and important radio broadcasts to America. The times are perfect for them.
I was planning on going to see Jewtopia - but its gonna be tough now. Its sold out and performances are being added. And tickets are $27.50. As in Twenty-Seven Fifty. Arizona OnStage is the producer. Is it really June in Tucson? Well, here is wishing a happy and succesful run for Annette Hillmann (the director) and her cast and crew! May the laughs be plenty.
If you want to go to Arizona Repertory Theate to see the UA students work it costs $28. As in Twenty-Eight. I am not sure when or where I got left behind in my ability to understand and appreciate the cost of a ticket, but I am finding myself standing on the side of the road nowadays when it comes to that.
I won't make it to see "Commander Hastings, murder at the equator" at Top Hat Theatre Club but I hope to see "Fireside Chats With FDR" there soon. James Gooden will re-create those famous and important radio broadcasts to America. The times are perfect for them.
I was planning on going to see Jewtopia - but its gonna be tough now. Its sold out and performances are being added. And tickets are $27.50. As in Twenty-Seven Fifty. Arizona OnStage is the producer. Is it really June in Tucson? Well, here is wishing a happy and succesful run for Annette Hillmann (the director) and her cast and crew! May the laughs be plenty.
If you want to go to Arizona Repertory Theate to see the UA students work it costs $28. As in Twenty-Eight. I am not sure when or where I got left behind in my ability to understand and appreciate the cost of a ticket, but I am finding myself standing on the side of the road nowadays when it comes to that.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Notes From Bill
Good questions, but they aren't questions I'm asking these days. Best theatre experience...AnnaMarie/DG and the TAT. We need some plays that address the current economic times, some theatrical experiences that addresses and confronts an apathetic nation that is at war and doesn't know it, some theatre that addresses the death of modern theatre as we know it, some theatrical life that will help us deal with life without The Citizen, Buicks, restaurants, Pontiacs, innocence, 401Ks, jobs -- something that will help us transition into the world of less. I was in my first play in 1955, my last play 2007, my last film, 2009. It's been a good run, and maybe something will come up that I'll work on in the future, but for now I'm back at work with a regular check every two weeks. Thanks and love to all, Bill
Did Somebody Say Peach Pie?!!!
As if Stanislavsky is not enough...but just to add to the fun...for the next (and last) Monday of "Stanislavsky Summer" I am planning some fresh baked summer goods, headlined by Peach Pie! Fresh fruit and fresh baked bread! And a little wine perhaps. All part of a little tribute for everyone, especially those who will have attended all three sessions. Come One, Come All. The subject will be "American Work in the Stanislavsky Tradition."
This coming Monday, June 22, at Prescott College, Tucson Center, 2233 E. Speedway at 7:30 p.m. Its all free and open to the public - cause thats the way we roll. Questions or comments contact dgreenwood@prescott.edu or (520) 591-2476.
This coming Monday, June 22, at Prescott College, Tucson Center, 2233 E. Speedway at 7:30 p.m. Its all free and open to the public - cause thats the way we roll. Questions or comments contact dgreenwood@prescott.edu or (520) 591-2476.
Notes from Patrick
David,My post:I'll try to answer the three questions together by saying I've beenmissing AKAtheatre these days. Not so much any particular plays in mind, more so theapproach to theatre they had, rough around the edges, moody, often dark, etc.They provided something that rounded out (probably the wrong metaphor sincethey were rough around the edges) our theatre possibilities and would be niceto attend again . . . as a corollary/contrast to the fine possibilitieswe have(and which I am grateful for . . . ) There was something about duckinginto thatdark space and really not knowing what you were about to get that wasneat. Itbrings to mind that there are many many memorable theatre experiences(the timeI laughed SO HARD with my students at an ATC production of "Art", the time ISOBBED UNCONTROLLABLY after seeing Sappo and Cindy Meier in "Cat in a Hot TinRoof," (there are many more) and the time I thrilled at seeing a very amateurproduction of O'Neill's "Mourning Becomes Electra" (which I'd dutifully readbefore attending) as performed by a "first time acting" troupe performing insome church space on the East Side . . . and what was most thrilling about itwas the fact that I walked in late and had the feeling that . . . well, it'shard to describe . . . here were these actors performing in some out ofthe wayplace to a small handful of spectators, doing this huge play, and it was alittle chilly outside, and a little cramped inside, and for all the world'sconcern nobody knew the play was on, except the actors, that smallhandful, andmyself, and the ducking into that space was like finding a hole in someroof asa kid and crawling into the attic, to disappear for a while, to see theinsides, to maybe find something to take away, or maybe not. I guess, in away, AKA was like that . . . you "ducked" inside, you had to, the entrance waslow (or is this just in my recollection of it . . . ) yes, and now I don'tremember the third (or was it the second) question . . .Patrick
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Some Questions
Here are some questions (thank you Patrick who came up with this idea) I invite you to respond to, either by comment or send me an email. I welcome also guest writers for posts, so if you feel so compelled, send me your work. I'll post it. It just needs to be appropriate to the general topic. I like human interests in theatre, unusual tales, of course acting, directing and writing, spectators viewpoints, special problems or circumstances, history and events, backstage horror stories and the rest. But on to the questions. We will just do three for now and make it a regular thing from here on out. Send me ideas for questions too.
Questions
1. What play or plays should be performed in Tucson that haven't been ever done or lately done. And why? Or maybe which plays should be re-done and why?
2. What are "missing ingredients" to our theatre culture here?
3. What's your worst or best experience in theatre and why?
and informally, why is it so feakin cold in Tucson this summer and does that bode well for upcoming seasons and shows?
Questions
1. What play or plays should be performed in Tucson that haven't been ever done or lately done. And why? Or maybe which plays should be re-done and why?
2. What are "missing ingredients" to our theatre culture here?
3. What's your worst or best experience in theatre and why?
and informally, why is it so feakin cold in Tucson this summer and does that bode well for upcoming seasons and shows?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Subject Came Up Last Night
Sometimes when I am working with actors I will set up improvisations, little etudes for them to do. Its a common thing of course. If I set up some basic circumstances for everyone just right, and if I then give the actors some individual guidelines or additional circumstances, the result of what is seen and heard on stage is good, interesting and often surprising, and more often than not entertaining. The actors are usually excited afterwards, invigorated by the work they have just done. "David" the new actor working with me exclaims, "you are such a good instructor! Genius! I am learning so much! I was so involved in what was happening and oh the things I was feeling and thinking on stage when everything was happening the way it did! It was great!" "Oh really?" I say, "I'm a genius? And your learning so much?" "Yes," They say. (My friends from Actor's Gymnasium know what is coming next). "In that case," I say, "do it again." "Do it again?" they ask. "Yes, it was great. You are right. So lets see it again. Do just as you did before." Afterall, one of the characteristics, one of the peculiarities of acting on the stage is that it has to be repeated, rehearsal by rehearsal and then performance by performance. So the actors take to the stage again to repeat the improvisation. Inevitably what happens next is not anywhere near as exciting and alive as that first time they did it. It falls flat. Gone is the literal thinking and problem solving and attention and awareness that they had going the first time. In its place is anticipation and waiting. Gone is the spontaneity of behavior from the first time, replaced by a kind of cliche copy of what happened before. Gone too is my genius, apparently, and everything they thought they had learned. Repitition kills.
Or does it? More likely it reveals. More than likely what the actor was feeling the first time was a generalized excitement, that thrill of something new happening, and not the flesh and bone sensation of genuine experience based on the set-up, the circumstances and situation as given. The second time around more than likely revealed the actors inability to really make the fictional circumstances meaningful to themselves - meaningful as in making themselves respond and do things behaviorally because of them.
Now student-teacher and teacher-student are at a crossroads. The teacher (me in this example) should be able, as the observer, to identify and articulate specifically how and why this phenomenon of change happened between the first and second times and then be able to give specific and practical suggestions to the actor(s) as to how to proceed in learning how to make those fictional (made-up, pretend) circumstances meaningful to themselves. That is, if the actor has not already sensed it all on their own. In either case, both are hopefully willingly and wanting to succeed in the next steps. There is a profound difference between an actor who has really learned to work actively with his/her living mind-body in relationship to the fictional world of a play, and the actor who hasn't.
In a workshop or classroom setting, we wouldn't expect actors to be exceptional in the results each new time they are taking something on, but we would expect to see, or begin to see, a technique, a craft and purpose developing that takes into consideration the peculiarities and factors of acting for the stage - i.e. the fact thats its based on fiction and the fact that the behavior has to be repeated. Proposing anything short of a concious attempt at that would be making playground activity in the name of acting. And the two do not equate.
Or does it? More likely it reveals. More than likely what the actor was feeling the first time was a generalized excitement, that thrill of something new happening, and not the flesh and bone sensation of genuine experience based on the set-up, the circumstances and situation as given. The second time around more than likely revealed the actors inability to really make the fictional circumstances meaningful to themselves - meaningful as in making themselves respond and do things behaviorally because of them.
Now student-teacher and teacher-student are at a crossroads. The teacher (me in this example) should be able, as the observer, to identify and articulate specifically how and why this phenomenon of change happened between the first and second times and then be able to give specific and practical suggestions to the actor(s) as to how to proceed in learning how to make those fictional (made-up, pretend) circumstances meaningful to themselves. That is, if the actor has not already sensed it all on their own. In either case, both are hopefully willingly and wanting to succeed in the next steps. There is a profound difference between an actor who has really learned to work actively with his/her living mind-body in relationship to the fictional world of a play, and the actor who hasn't.
In a workshop or classroom setting, we wouldn't expect actors to be exceptional in the results each new time they are taking something on, but we would expect to see, or begin to see, a technique, a craft and purpose developing that takes into consideration the peculiarities and factors of acting for the stage - i.e. the fact thats its based on fiction and the fact that the behavior has to be repeated. Proposing anything short of a concious attempt at that would be making playground activity in the name of acting. And the two do not equate.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Second Coming
It's the second Monday for Stanislavsky Summer! That means beginning at 7:30 p.m. tonight the topic is The System! Development and Practical Applications of. Happens at Prescott College, Tucson Center 2233 E. Speedway. And of course it is free. No cost. I've had a few new email inquiries this week from people asking about attending. I am looking forward to meeting them and having everyone at the presentation. The only sad thing about tonight is that the last time I did a series of presentations in the evening, we had a "proscenium servant" who looked after everyone, food and drink, and lookin' hot. Tonight no such luck. (Come to think of it, she kind of "stole the show" last time!). Lean times, lean times.
I had a wonderful time last Friday going to Beowulf Alley Theatre to observe an open class. I always like going downtown for one thing. (I lived right there for a while until this past Oct). When I walked in the door that night, there was Beth Dell with a big smile and kind greeting and it was so great to see her. I had just a few minutes until the class was to start but I did get to talk briefly with Phil Bennet in the lobby. Phil is the instructor for the class. In the theatre itself I ran into a wonderful couple I hadn't seen in a long time and whose son was a student in the class. Beth came in and gave a very nice introduction and mentioned a few facts about the upcoming season for Beowulf and some of the other activities happening there. She was gracious and welcoming. I saw some familiar faces in the class itself too, talent and personality abounding. I thank everyone there that night once again.
I had a wonderful time last Friday going to Beowulf Alley Theatre to observe an open class. I always like going downtown for one thing. (I lived right there for a while until this past Oct). When I walked in the door that night, there was Beth Dell with a big smile and kind greeting and it was so great to see her. I had just a few minutes until the class was to start but I did get to talk briefly with Phil Bennet in the lobby. Phil is the instructor for the class. In the theatre itself I ran into a wonderful couple I hadn't seen in a long time and whose son was a student in the class. Beth came in and gave a very nice introduction and mentioned a few facts about the upcoming season for Beowulf and some of the other activities happening there. She was gracious and welcoming. I saw some familiar faces in the class itself too, talent and personality abounding. I thank everyone there that night once again.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Patrick and The World
I love Patrick Baliani. Then again, everyone I know loves Patrick Baliani. In fact, I believe the whole world loves Patrick Baliani. How does the saying go? What's not to love?! We love him with good reason. His poor wife and kids have to put up with the rest of us, the world at large, always wanting or hoping for his time, his ideas, his attention. But we love his wife and children as much as we love him. O.k. I'm gushing. But everyone does on this subject.
Over the years with his teaching, writing, acting, directing, and all around presence, Patrick has made lasting and wonderful contributions to our theatre community here. Take a random sample from any of his University of Arizona students over the years and they will all hands down sing his praise and specifically articulate what it was that was so special about being in his class. Ask the group of distinguished, vibrant and intelligent people who attend his seminars at Academy Village about Patrick and they will get a gleam in their eyes. Ask the students, faculty or staff at Prescott College, Tucson Center who have had a chance to work with Patrick and the first response is always "when is Patrick coming back?" Check with any of his many friends from over the years and it will be unanimous. We love him and we love to work with him - we are all happy repeat offenders in that regard!
All that said makes only a very, very small scratch in that particular iceberg.
Very recently Patrick asked me to join Steve Anderson, Cindy Meier and Joe McGrath for an upcoming afternoon panel on "King Lear" for his summer Honors College course. Of course I said yes. (Afterall, I've heard its a good play). Now Cindy Meier and Joe McGrath need virtually no introduction here - live, laugh, love Rogue Theatre! Joe McGrath is the hardest working man in theatre and Cindy Meier is a close second. OK, I know that didn't sound quite right. Let me re-phrase that. Cindy Meier is the hardest working woman in theatre and Joe McGrath is a close second. Um, Cindy and Joe are the hardest working people in theatre and their efforts and talents are well evident. In fact the most common saying by actors in Tucson is "I want to get cast at Rogue." Now Steve Anderson shouldn't need an introduction but he is perhaps the best kept secret in all of Tucson when it comes to acting, directing, teaching, play analysis, Theatre in general, and all around great work. He is not, however, unknown to his students and family and those of us who have been lucky enough to work with him. I have had to cancel many projects because Steve was not available and no one else would do. At least its so in my fantasy and imagination. Cindy, Joe, Steve...your individual posts are coming baby! And I will see you all in a month or so on the panel. Right now, I gotta get back to Brother Baliani.
Do I have all day to write? Because that is what it would take really to describe all the things Patrick has done. But this is not a lifetime achievement speech or anything so I won't go that far.
I would not want to overlook or neglect to mention though that Patrick is a marvelous story teller. I have spent way too much time rolling on the floor with laughter as he is recounts some experience of his. And if Patrick wasn't Patrick he might have been Stephen Jay Gould or someone like that. He has a knack for making sense of things that at first thought have no connection whatsoever. He brings together subjects and ideas that few would dare attempt to do. All in a days work.
There is a certain zest with which Patrick conducts his classes and approaches life in general. I'm not enough of a word artists to capture its essence here. (I met someone once and said excitedly "Oh, you're the poet I heard about." He replied flatly, "No, I'm a word artist." Oh, oh, oh. So for now, I'm gaging "word artist" above "poet" but saying I'm neither "word artist" nor "poet" enough to capture the essence of that zest descriptively). It is of the appealing sort though, and backed by or fueled by good and intelligent purpose, and fun, just fun to be around.
Last year Patrick did the translation/adaptation of Pirandello's play "Six Characters In Search of an Author" for Cindy and Joe and the Rogue Theatre. And it was pretty darn good. He once did an adaptation of that very same play for Third St. Kids and it was genius. He followed that with an original work that he wrote specifically for that group and at a National Disability Conference held in Phoenix that year that play rocked the house!
And then there was Patrick playing my alcoholic father in Inge's "The Disposal." Well, the rehearsals themselves are legendary among the few of us who were there, and Patrick's performance itself was truly one for the ages.
Yes indeed, we all love Patrick and he is one of our Treasures here in Tucson. (He might hate me for that cliche. Told ya I'm no word artist).
Over the years with his teaching, writing, acting, directing, and all around presence, Patrick has made lasting and wonderful contributions to our theatre community here. Take a random sample from any of his University of Arizona students over the years and they will all hands down sing his praise and specifically articulate what it was that was so special about being in his class. Ask the group of distinguished, vibrant and intelligent people who attend his seminars at Academy Village about Patrick and they will get a gleam in their eyes. Ask the students, faculty or staff at Prescott College, Tucson Center who have had a chance to work with Patrick and the first response is always "when is Patrick coming back?" Check with any of his many friends from over the years and it will be unanimous. We love him and we love to work with him - we are all happy repeat offenders in that regard!
All that said makes only a very, very small scratch in that particular iceberg.
Very recently Patrick asked me to join Steve Anderson, Cindy Meier and Joe McGrath for an upcoming afternoon panel on "King Lear" for his summer Honors College course. Of course I said yes. (Afterall, I've heard its a good play). Now Cindy Meier and Joe McGrath need virtually no introduction here - live, laugh, love Rogue Theatre! Joe McGrath is the hardest working man in theatre and Cindy Meier is a close second. OK, I know that didn't sound quite right. Let me re-phrase that. Cindy Meier is the hardest working woman in theatre and Joe McGrath is a close second. Um, Cindy and Joe are the hardest working people in theatre and their efforts and talents are well evident. In fact the most common saying by actors in Tucson is "I want to get cast at Rogue." Now Steve Anderson shouldn't need an introduction but he is perhaps the best kept secret in all of Tucson when it comes to acting, directing, teaching, play analysis, Theatre in general, and all around great work. He is not, however, unknown to his students and family and those of us who have been lucky enough to work with him. I have had to cancel many projects because Steve was not available and no one else would do. At least its so in my fantasy and imagination. Cindy, Joe, Steve...your individual posts are coming baby! And I will see you all in a month or so on the panel. Right now, I gotta get back to Brother Baliani.
Do I have all day to write? Because that is what it would take really to describe all the things Patrick has done. But this is not a lifetime achievement speech or anything so I won't go that far.
I would not want to overlook or neglect to mention though that Patrick is a marvelous story teller. I have spent way too much time rolling on the floor with laughter as he is recounts some experience of his. And if Patrick wasn't Patrick he might have been Stephen Jay Gould or someone like that. He has a knack for making sense of things that at first thought have no connection whatsoever. He brings together subjects and ideas that few would dare attempt to do. All in a days work.
There is a certain zest with which Patrick conducts his classes and approaches life in general. I'm not enough of a word artists to capture its essence here. (I met someone once and said excitedly "Oh, you're the poet I heard about." He replied flatly, "No, I'm a word artist." Oh, oh, oh. So for now, I'm gaging "word artist" above "poet" but saying I'm neither "word artist" nor "poet" enough to capture the essence of that zest descriptively). It is of the appealing sort though, and backed by or fueled by good and intelligent purpose, and fun, just fun to be around.
Last year Patrick did the translation/adaptation of Pirandello's play "Six Characters In Search of an Author" for Cindy and Joe and the Rogue Theatre. And it was pretty darn good. He once did an adaptation of that very same play for Third St. Kids and it was genius. He followed that with an original work that he wrote specifically for that group and at a National Disability Conference held in Phoenix that year that play rocked the house!
And then there was Patrick playing my alcoholic father in Inge's "The Disposal." Well, the rehearsals themselves are legendary among the few of us who were there, and Patrick's performance itself was truly one for the ages.
Yes indeed, we all love Patrick and he is one of our Treasures here in Tucson. (He might hate me for that cliche. Told ya I'm no word artist).
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Active Analysis in Context
I recently re-read the following
"Vahktangov Directs The Dybbuk" by Joseph Yzraely.
"Stanislavsky at Work on the Play Woe from Wit," by Nikolai Gorchakov.
"On the Action Analysis of Plays and Roles" by Maria Knebel
"Journey Without End" by Lev Dodin
I can't pretend to summarize the all details of these works in this post. There is however a profound thread, an obvious tradition, that runs through the four which is easily recognizable. The books span the time from 1922 to 2004 and they cover the approaches of four directors/teachers - Vakhtangov, Stanislavsky, Knebel and Dodin. At hand is how these director/teachers work with actors in analyzing a play and how they then turn that analysis into production.
You may or may not have in your lifetime heard such terms as "Active Analysis" or "Method of Physical Actions" or even the more general "Improvisational Approach." The specifics of names may seem inconsequential to some but we all know that words have meanings and implications and suggest certain activities and interpretations. Therefore we should be clear and specific in this case. Stanislavsky referred to this type of rehearsal work as "Analysis through Action" or as "Active Analysis." He did not use the phrase "Method of Physical Action." He did suggest and practice that "a line of physical action" is one part of the overall approach in terms of this kind of analysis but he did not suggest or practice that it was the only line of action nor the definitive line of action, nor the key line of action that ultimately sets everything else in motion. It was but one part of the whole.
"Active Analysis" is a rehearsal technique, a way for actors and directors to analyze, interpret and format a play using "living material" i.e. thoughts, sensations, physical actions, and feelings. It is not and was not intended as a primary training technique for actors in the details of their craft. In regards to actor training, it is again one part of the whole, but it is not the fundamental basis - at least it wasn't considered as such by Stanislavsky.
Lest I run the risk of making "Active Analysis" sound like an anything goes kind of process, I want to mention certain features or requirements, goals of "Active Analysis." The first requirement is a clear appraisal of the basic facts of the play, the who, what, when, where type of stuff. The next requirement is a clear understanding and conception of the basic story line, or sequence of events and activities. Next is a determination of the "main event" of the play followed by a determinations of the "secondary events" of the play. Then an "initiating event" is determined. That is the kind of thing that could and probably did happen before the actual story dramatized in the play happens. For example, Hamlet's father gets killed prior to the first line of the script and during the play itself we hear tell of it. That could be considered the "initiating event" of the play in the sense that if Hamlet's father had not been killed, the play itself, the story, would never occur as it does. Next is determining how the relationship between "initiating event" and the "main event" of the play is pieced together through the activities and actions of the characters. In other words, the actors as characters, individually and collectively, must create or have logical actions that take into account the influence of both of these events. All of that is accompanied by or followed by an appraisal of the language of the play, its style, its use, etc. as well as an appraisal of various themes inherent in the play. That's a lot of activity and analysis so far and I have yet to really touch on the appraisals of each individual character. The point is, there is specific method in the madness as they say. It is an intelligent and thorough examination of the play, of the authors words, the authors intent.
Various ways of working come into play with each of these requirement and goals. For example, "the line of physical action" can be helpful in determining the basic story or sequence of events. The First Act of Hamlet, the Hamlet character himself for example, when he walks out on the platform before the castle because he has been told he may see the ghost of his father there - the actor playing this part could go through the process of tracing the physical line thus - I walk up the steps, stop, hesitate when I feel the wind at the top, pull my cloak around me tightly, try to peer through the fog, hear the canon sounds, (Shakespeare is a dream of a writer btw when it comes to sensory elements), walk forward, talk to Horatio, etc. The actor actively doing this begins then to get a visceral sense of the story line, begins to understand those basics. Later on, as the "initiating event" or the "language" is taken into account for example, the actor may make adjustments as to how he walks, where and how he looks, etc.
Having analyzed a sequence like that, the actor is instinctively prompted on - "oh, yes, I have been on the Danish coast. I know how those winds are there. You have to almost yell for the other person to hear you. And the winds freeze your lips, your tongue. The sounds of words are strange to your ears through that wind, almost muffled. Is that the sound of someone next to you, someone real, or is it the sound of a ghost far away, in the distance? Its confusing like that. And the light and the fog plays tricks on your eyes."
Now when the actor does the sequence again he pauses before getting to the top, because he knows Hamlet has made this walk before and knows the impact the wind will have, so he stops below the top and adjusts his cloak in advance, in anticipation of the wind and cold. Words spoken to one another are adjusted, the last thing said for example before descending to the top. The volume, the tempo, is adjusted as the characters, actors arrive at the top of the platform. Now the "beauty" of Shakespeare is begin to be seen and understood not just in words and language but in time and place and circumstance. The actors are not busy trying to conjure up mental intentions and obstacles but rather are sensing and creating tangible and viscerally understandable activities. Now the actors and director have arrived at point where they can use Shakespeare's language not merely as vocal gymnastics but as precise and specific verbal actions due to circumstance and conditions. The overall effect can be as "theatrical' as they choose or want. It could be as "comical" as they want trying to talk and hear each other in the wind and cold and the canon sounds. Options abound. Such is the work of "Active Analysis."
Following the four particular books in the order that I listed them, presents a chronological, developmental and "passing on" sequence of this type of work. Its a nice reminder to the possibilities and an indication of how and why this type of work was used in rehearsal by these individuals. These four works are just a small part of numerous writings on the subject, including various first-hand accounts and these four individuals are just some of the theatre artists who have successfully adopted this technique and who happen to have a large and thorough grasp of its whole.
"Vahktangov Directs The Dybbuk" by Joseph Yzraely.
"Stanislavsky at Work on the Play Woe from Wit," by Nikolai Gorchakov.
"On the Action Analysis of Plays and Roles" by Maria Knebel
"Journey Without End" by Lev Dodin
I can't pretend to summarize the all details of these works in this post. There is however a profound thread, an obvious tradition, that runs through the four which is easily recognizable. The books span the time from 1922 to 2004 and they cover the approaches of four directors/teachers - Vakhtangov, Stanislavsky, Knebel and Dodin. At hand is how these director/teachers work with actors in analyzing a play and how they then turn that analysis into production.
You may or may not have in your lifetime heard such terms as "Active Analysis" or "Method of Physical Actions" or even the more general "Improvisational Approach." The specifics of names may seem inconsequential to some but we all know that words have meanings and implications and suggest certain activities and interpretations. Therefore we should be clear and specific in this case. Stanislavsky referred to this type of rehearsal work as "Analysis through Action" or as "Active Analysis." He did not use the phrase "Method of Physical Action." He did suggest and practice that "a line of physical action" is one part of the overall approach in terms of this kind of analysis but he did not suggest or practice that it was the only line of action nor the definitive line of action, nor the key line of action that ultimately sets everything else in motion. It was but one part of the whole.
"Active Analysis" is a rehearsal technique, a way for actors and directors to analyze, interpret and format a play using "living material" i.e. thoughts, sensations, physical actions, and feelings. It is not and was not intended as a primary training technique for actors in the details of their craft. In regards to actor training, it is again one part of the whole, but it is not the fundamental basis - at least it wasn't considered as such by Stanislavsky.
Lest I run the risk of making "Active Analysis" sound like an anything goes kind of process, I want to mention certain features or requirements, goals of "Active Analysis." The first requirement is a clear appraisal of the basic facts of the play, the who, what, when, where type of stuff. The next requirement is a clear understanding and conception of the basic story line, or sequence of events and activities. Next is a determination of the "main event" of the play followed by a determinations of the "secondary events" of the play. Then an "initiating event" is determined. That is the kind of thing that could and probably did happen before the actual story dramatized in the play happens. For example, Hamlet's father gets killed prior to the first line of the script and during the play itself we hear tell of it. That could be considered the "initiating event" of the play in the sense that if Hamlet's father had not been killed, the play itself, the story, would never occur as it does. Next is determining how the relationship between "initiating event" and the "main event" of the play is pieced together through the activities and actions of the characters. In other words, the actors as characters, individually and collectively, must create or have logical actions that take into account the influence of both of these events. All of that is accompanied by or followed by an appraisal of the language of the play, its style, its use, etc. as well as an appraisal of various themes inherent in the play. That's a lot of activity and analysis so far and I have yet to really touch on the appraisals of each individual character. The point is, there is specific method in the madness as they say. It is an intelligent and thorough examination of the play, of the authors words, the authors intent.
Various ways of working come into play with each of these requirement and goals. For example, "the line of physical action" can be helpful in determining the basic story or sequence of events. The First Act of Hamlet, the Hamlet character himself for example, when he walks out on the platform before the castle because he has been told he may see the ghost of his father there - the actor playing this part could go through the process of tracing the physical line thus - I walk up the steps, stop, hesitate when I feel the wind at the top, pull my cloak around me tightly, try to peer through the fog, hear the canon sounds, (Shakespeare is a dream of a writer btw when it comes to sensory elements), walk forward, talk to Horatio, etc. The actor actively doing this begins then to get a visceral sense of the story line, begins to understand those basics. Later on, as the "initiating event" or the "language" is taken into account for example, the actor may make adjustments as to how he walks, where and how he looks, etc.
Having analyzed a sequence like that, the actor is instinctively prompted on - "oh, yes, I have been on the Danish coast. I know how those winds are there. You have to almost yell for the other person to hear you. And the winds freeze your lips, your tongue. The sounds of words are strange to your ears through that wind, almost muffled. Is that the sound of someone next to you, someone real, or is it the sound of a ghost far away, in the distance? Its confusing like that. And the light and the fog plays tricks on your eyes."
Now when the actor does the sequence again he pauses before getting to the top, because he knows Hamlet has made this walk before and knows the impact the wind will have, so he stops below the top and adjusts his cloak in advance, in anticipation of the wind and cold. Words spoken to one another are adjusted, the last thing said for example before descending to the top. The volume, the tempo, is adjusted as the characters, actors arrive at the top of the platform. Now the "beauty" of Shakespeare is begin to be seen and understood not just in words and language but in time and place and circumstance. The actors are not busy trying to conjure up mental intentions and obstacles but rather are sensing and creating tangible and viscerally understandable activities. Now the actors and director have arrived at point where they can use Shakespeare's language not merely as vocal gymnastics but as precise and specific verbal actions due to circumstance and conditions. The overall effect can be as "theatrical' as they choose or want. It could be as "comical" as they want trying to talk and hear each other in the wind and cold and the canon sounds. Options abound. Such is the work of "Active Analysis."
Following the four particular books in the order that I listed them, presents a chronological, developmental and "passing on" sequence of this type of work. Its a nice reminder to the possibilities and an indication of how and why this type of work was used in rehearsal by these individuals. These four works are just a small part of numerous writings on the subject, including various first-hand accounts and these four individuals are just some of the theatre artists who have successfully adopted this technique and who happen to have a large and thorough grasp of its whole.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Things Unknown Proposed as Things Forgot
A few things I'm looking forward to and a few things I'm hoping for.Looking forward to:
Seeing the work of the students at Beowulf Alley who have been in Phil Bennets workshop. They have a public demonstration tonight and I plan to attend in support.
Doing another presentation this coming Monday (15th) on Stanislavsky's work. Prescott College Tucson Center, 7:30 p.m. Its Free. (Hey, I might even do a short monologue as part of the deal!).
Seeing Jewtopia when it opens. What the heck (sometimes you have to say what the heck). Annette Hillmann is directing and that means its probably funny funny funny. Arizona Onstage Productions, at the Temple of Music and Art, Cabaret Theatre. It all sounds like a perfect combination.
Hoping for:
The day Kim Lowry writes a poetic play and Rogue Theatre produces it.
Roberta Streicher takes a turn in "The Trip to Bountiful" or one of several other plays by Horton Foote.
Whitney Vale and others from Ubi Sunt to make a public work.Thursday, June 11, 2009
Pedagogy and Theatre of the Oppressed.
A few months back I returned to my high school as part of an Alumni contingent to show and offer support and encouragement for the current group of students matriculating there. Among those kids, not a single one will be given a new car if or when they graduate. None will be given substantial capital to go out and make it in life. And none would be returning home that day to upstairs rooms, computers, televisions, phones, ipods, and other teenage luxuries. Times have not changed in the neighborhood.
In the short time we were to be there, our Alumni group was to articulate some possibilities and identify the positives in education and the positives of being part of the community at hand - all part of the pride and practice. We were dispersed to various classrooms to speak to the kids. I heard my friends and colleagues tell personal stories of perseverance, hard work, determination, the value of education, of family, friends and community. Their stories were humorous, moving, and inspirational on many levels. The kids responded to them well I thought. I couldn't for the life of me though resist a more "revolutionary' tone and approach when it was my turn to speak.
I did not offer them stories of my own educational or professional journey but rather asked them questions of about theirs. Who is in charge of your education? Who determines what you learn, how you learn it, when you learn it and where you learn it? Who determines how you are tested and measured on your newly acquired knowledge? Are you a willing and active participant in the process? For some, the questions and ideas were too new, too much, too seemingly abstract. I asked further questions about the learning environment, the physical settings, time of day, etc. Some still didn't get it or care, others though perked up their ears and began to talk.
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire and "Theatre of the Oppressed" by Augusto Boal, these are two of the calling card books at Prescott College. Both men are Brazilian. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" was first published in 1970. "Theatre of the Oppressed" was first published in 1974. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" lays out the responsibility of the oppressed to liberate both themselves and their oppressors. "Theatre of the Oppressed" lays out the responsibility of performers to engage both themselves and their spectators in action.
I often ask questions to actors as well. Why do you act? Where do you act? Who do you act for and what do you act? I am not looking or hoping that they answer that they want to perform in the name of workers rights or spiritual prosperity (although its nice to hear when that is the case). Most just say they "like it." Some want to perform on stage. Some want to be filmed. Hardly any know "who" they will act for or exactly "what" they will act, as in the type of roles or the material or subject matter. In those cases they are at the mercy of the producing organizations and facilitators. For that they mostly wait day by day, season by season, year by year for audition announcements and those rare opportunities to show their stuff and do their thing.
All that leads to a question that can or should be considered. What constitutes the activity or daily behavior that makes "an actor?" We all know the typical. Auditions, Rehearsal, Performance, and the occasional Workshop or Class. Very often days, weeks, months and even years go by between these particular activities for individuals. I'm not saying actors are oppressed, but they are not in charge or in control or sharing control of any of those functions - the very functions which just happen to define them.
And what of the actors very "home," the stage, the theatre? Sadly the actors have lost or given it up as well. The stage is ruled in our society by directors and writers hands down. Actors are secondary or third or fourth or even fifth in acknowledgement or need. A typical producer or producing organization's thought and action pattern calls for a quest for a play or a director first. Depending on which of those comes first the other one comes second. Next comes a schedule, when the play is to be performed and where. Then comes designers for lights, costumes, stage properties and a stage manager. Finally, they seek actors who fit what they hope and intend the play to look and sound like. I'm not saying actors are oppressed, but they do not share equally in the common process of production and they are not masters in their own home. They are the jobbed in workers, seasonal, transients. They don't have keys to the building!
The days when it was acceptable that an actor, single or with others, could construct a performance have slipped away. The days of long term collaboration and equal participation have left. Masters are teachers now and actors have lost their own pedagogy. All this is not solely the fault of the writers, the directors, the teachers, the producers. Actors must liberate themselves...and their oppressors as well if we follow Freire's example and hope.
In the short time we were to be there, our Alumni group was to articulate some possibilities and identify the positives in education and the positives of being part of the community at hand - all part of the pride and practice. We were dispersed to various classrooms to speak to the kids. I heard my friends and colleagues tell personal stories of perseverance, hard work, determination, the value of education, of family, friends and community. Their stories were humorous, moving, and inspirational on many levels. The kids responded to them well I thought. I couldn't for the life of me though resist a more "revolutionary' tone and approach when it was my turn to speak.
I did not offer them stories of my own educational or professional journey but rather asked them questions of about theirs. Who is in charge of your education? Who determines what you learn, how you learn it, when you learn it and where you learn it? Who determines how you are tested and measured on your newly acquired knowledge? Are you a willing and active participant in the process? For some, the questions and ideas were too new, too much, too seemingly abstract. I asked further questions about the learning environment, the physical settings, time of day, etc. Some still didn't get it or care, others though perked up their ears and began to talk.
"Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Paulo Freire and "Theatre of the Oppressed" by Augusto Boal, these are two of the calling card books at Prescott College. Both men are Brazilian. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" was first published in 1970. "Theatre of the Oppressed" was first published in 1974. "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" lays out the responsibility of the oppressed to liberate both themselves and their oppressors. "Theatre of the Oppressed" lays out the responsibility of performers to engage both themselves and their spectators in action.
I often ask questions to actors as well. Why do you act? Where do you act? Who do you act for and what do you act? I am not looking or hoping that they answer that they want to perform in the name of workers rights or spiritual prosperity (although its nice to hear when that is the case). Most just say they "like it." Some want to perform on stage. Some want to be filmed. Hardly any know "who" they will act for or exactly "what" they will act, as in the type of roles or the material or subject matter. In those cases they are at the mercy of the producing organizations and facilitators. For that they mostly wait day by day, season by season, year by year for audition announcements and those rare opportunities to show their stuff and do their thing.
All that leads to a question that can or should be considered. What constitutes the activity or daily behavior that makes "an actor?" We all know the typical. Auditions, Rehearsal, Performance, and the occasional Workshop or Class. Very often days, weeks, months and even years go by between these particular activities for individuals. I'm not saying actors are oppressed, but they are not in charge or in control or sharing control of any of those functions - the very functions which just happen to define them.
And what of the actors very "home," the stage, the theatre? Sadly the actors have lost or given it up as well. The stage is ruled in our society by directors and writers hands down. Actors are secondary or third or fourth or even fifth in acknowledgement or need. A typical producer or producing organization's thought and action pattern calls for a quest for a play or a director first. Depending on which of those comes first the other one comes second. Next comes a schedule, when the play is to be performed and where. Then comes designers for lights, costumes, stage properties and a stage manager. Finally, they seek actors who fit what they hope and intend the play to look and sound like. I'm not saying actors are oppressed, but they do not share equally in the common process of production and they are not masters in their own home. They are the jobbed in workers, seasonal, transients. They don't have keys to the building!
The days when it was acceptable that an actor, single or with others, could construct a performance have slipped away. The days of long term collaboration and equal participation have left. Masters are teachers now and actors have lost their own pedagogy. All this is not solely the fault of the writers, the directors, the teachers, the producers. Actors must liberate themselves...and their oppressors as well if we follow Freire's example and hope.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Theatre of Cruelty
The easiest and shortest explanation of "Theatre of Cruelty" is that it doesn't, in the end, give you what you want, what you have come to expect. It's cruel like that. It sets up certain expectations, certain logic, but does not follow through in familiar fashion. It changes the logic, once, twice or more and you the spectator are forced to view and contemplate things finally in ways you did not want to. The ideas behind Theatre of Cruelty do not, as some assume (or perhaps hope), imply whips and chains. Nor is it waterboard torture being done on stage. It's more like the lover you want, who teases you endlessly, arouses you in ways you never dreamed possible, but when the clothes come off is everything you don't expect, everything you don't want, and everything that makes you want to run and say you were never there to begin with. And heaven forbid your friends find out! That's what theatre of cruelty is like. Or is supposed to be like.
Theatre of Cruelty, the term and the popularity of it was set in motion by Antoine Artaud from a long treatise he wrote on the subject. It's not recommended reading. It may lose something in translation, as in something big, something understandable, but it is very difficult none-the-less to read from beginning to end, even for someone like me who half lives for these types of things. It takes a saintly patience to read it. Its only rival that I know of would be "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." (I want back those two hours or so btw that I spent on that book!).
Call Artaud crazy or whatever and nevermind the fact that he doesn't have, never had, any real production work to illuminate what he wrote. There is still an importance, an influence to what he wrote. And whether we refer to it by that catchy phrase, theatre of cruelty, or not, the premise behind it and its ways and effects when actualized on stage are important lessons every actor and director should take to heart, or at least take note of. I would be the first to criticize my own work and the work of others if or when it falls into the dreariness of a single line of action at any given moment, beginning to end, with a single flow of logic based on the simplicity of crossing every t and dotting every i. And lord knows it happens on a regular basis, scene by scene, act by act, play by play. As a spectator, when that is happening, when that is what you are experiencing, the only thing left for you is to hope that it is somehow "good." "Well, the acting was good." "That actress was good in that part." "The lighting was good." Or, "That wasn't so good how they did that." In other words, you are simply judging the execution of the intended logic of the action. "Well, seems to me like that character should have cried during that moment, real tears." "No, I don't think so, real tears have to be earned. She didn't earn them." "Well to me it wasn't believable because she didn't cry." "Well, it was believable to me. I don't cry in those situations either." "That's because you have a repressed personality."
Surprisingly enough, those single action at a time based on single logic, cross every t and dot every i productions are facilitated and encouraged in the name of clarity and communication. The problem is they fall over the edge into a kind of pedantic illustration of human intentions and behaviors. Show and tell kind of. "You are showing me you are going to drink the orange juice, oh now you are drinking the orange juice, oh now you are telling me you drank the orange juice. That was good! As a spectator I could see you wanted to drink the orange juice, and then I saw you actually drink it, and afterward I could hear how much you liked it."
Face it, as a director and a spectator, we, you, know that you are waiting for the actors to learn their lines, and trying to figure out just how everyone will move around the stage, and you want it to be "good" or interesting, and you want everyone to know that the material (meaning the subject matter and the story of the written script) is "important" and you want them to know why and how its "important," and of course you can't forget to tell them its funny too, don't forget its funny, and so you are busy thinking of all this stuff and of course you end up reducing everything to a single simple line of pedantic action for those very reasons. We are all guilty. And that is where a little Artaud (you thought I was gonna say Stanislavsky) comes in.
The modern master of introducing multiple streams of logic, of breaking, interrupting, changing or adding to the perceptions of the spectator, is Eugenio Barba at the Odin Teatret. Being a spectator to their productions is at first disconcerting because everything is "theatrical." Read theatrical as "provoking." I don't mean big or grand or "out there." I mean genuinely theatrical as in the sense it makes you go "wow" or "that is so clever" or "that surprised the hell out of me" or "gave me chills" etc. What you are experiencing as a spectator is that you are discovering new contexts. You are seeing and contemplating things in unusual or different ways and they seem to change often right before your eyes. There is a real sense of wonderment and what comes next. Simple actions hold this sway over you at their productions. Simple, simple actions executed in particular time.
Barba by the way is a fan of the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr. "Is an electron a wave?" "Yes" says Bohr, "if you are looking through a a wave-measuring apparatus." "Is an electron a wave?" "No" says Bohr, "if you look through a particle-measuring device."
Its a fun topic... and here is hoping you have a little cruelty happening in your next theatre going experience.
Theatre of Cruelty, the term and the popularity of it was set in motion by Antoine Artaud from a long treatise he wrote on the subject. It's not recommended reading. It may lose something in translation, as in something big, something understandable, but it is very difficult none-the-less to read from beginning to end, even for someone like me who half lives for these types of things. It takes a saintly patience to read it. Its only rival that I know of would be "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." (I want back those two hours or so btw that I spent on that book!).
Call Artaud crazy or whatever and nevermind the fact that he doesn't have, never had, any real production work to illuminate what he wrote. There is still an importance, an influence to what he wrote. And whether we refer to it by that catchy phrase, theatre of cruelty, or not, the premise behind it and its ways and effects when actualized on stage are important lessons every actor and director should take to heart, or at least take note of. I would be the first to criticize my own work and the work of others if or when it falls into the dreariness of a single line of action at any given moment, beginning to end, with a single flow of logic based on the simplicity of crossing every t and dotting every i. And lord knows it happens on a regular basis, scene by scene, act by act, play by play. As a spectator, when that is happening, when that is what you are experiencing, the only thing left for you is to hope that it is somehow "good." "Well, the acting was good." "That actress was good in that part." "The lighting was good." Or, "That wasn't so good how they did that." In other words, you are simply judging the execution of the intended logic of the action. "Well, seems to me like that character should have cried during that moment, real tears." "No, I don't think so, real tears have to be earned. She didn't earn them." "Well to me it wasn't believable because she didn't cry." "Well, it was believable to me. I don't cry in those situations either." "That's because you have a repressed personality."
Surprisingly enough, those single action at a time based on single logic, cross every t and dot every i productions are facilitated and encouraged in the name of clarity and communication. The problem is they fall over the edge into a kind of pedantic illustration of human intentions and behaviors. Show and tell kind of. "You are showing me you are going to drink the orange juice, oh now you are drinking the orange juice, oh now you are telling me you drank the orange juice. That was good! As a spectator I could see you wanted to drink the orange juice, and then I saw you actually drink it, and afterward I could hear how much you liked it."
Face it, as a director and a spectator, we, you, know that you are waiting for the actors to learn their lines, and trying to figure out just how everyone will move around the stage, and you want it to be "good" or interesting, and you want everyone to know that the material (meaning the subject matter and the story of the written script) is "important" and you want them to know why and how its "important," and of course you can't forget to tell them its funny too, don't forget its funny, and so you are busy thinking of all this stuff and of course you end up reducing everything to a single simple line of pedantic action for those very reasons. We are all guilty. And that is where a little Artaud (you thought I was gonna say Stanislavsky) comes in.
The modern master of introducing multiple streams of logic, of breaking, interrupting, changing or adding to the perceptions of the spectator, is Eugenio Barba at the Odin Teatret. Being a spectator to their productions is at first disconcerting because everything is "theatrical." Read theatrical as "provoking." I don't mean big or grand or "out there." I mean genuinely theatrical as in the sense it makes you go "wow" or "that is so clever" or "that surprised the hell out of me" or "gave me chills" etc. What you are experiencing as a spectator is that you are discovering new contexts. You are seeing and contemplating things in unusual or different ways and they seem to change often right before your eyes. There is a real sense of wonderment and what comes next. Simple actions hold this sway over you at their productions. Simple, simple actions executed in particular time.
Barba by the way is a fan of the great Danish physicist Niels Bohr. "Is an electron a wave?" "Yes" says Bohr, "if you are looking through a a wave-measuring apparatus." "Is an electron a wave?" "No" says Bohr, "if you look through a particle-measuring device."
Its a fun topic... and here is hoping you have a little cruelty happening in your next theatre going experience.
Monday, June 8, 2009
In Praise of the Spectator
I have a friend and co-worker named Sandy. Sandy and her husband like to attend the theatre, go to plays, occasionally. In fact, they belong to a little informal group that makes a little ritual of before, during and after activities. They don't go to all plays all the time. But they go as the chance or reason arises.
Sandy and her husband are modest and prudent people, smart and caring. Sandy works with me and her husband owns a small business. He is a true small business owner. By that I mean he doesn't assume he is supposed to get rich beyond his wildest dreams just because he owns a business. He assumes he will make a modest or decent living. He has kept the business for many years based on loyalty, hard work, good work and respect all around. Sandy and her husband own their home, nothing fancy, simple middle class midtown long time residents. Sandy enjoys typical pursuits in her spare time, gardening, reading, occasional travel, social time with friends, and cooking.
In the realm of "people who go to every production anywhere anytime" and "people who never go and don't even know that theatre exists," Sandy and her husband are the average Jane and Joe. Whereas there are people who know everything about production and theatre and those who are clueless, Sandy and her husband are "everywoman" and "everyman." Sandy and her husband are as "ordinary" as they come - and I mean that in the best and most meaningful sense of that term.
With ticket prices to theatres usually beginning at about eighteen dollars per person, it is easy to imagine Sandy and her husband spending fifty dollars or more if they go, and have a drink or snack before or after the show. With dinner included the price easily goes to one-hundred or more. For Sandy and her husband, this is affordable but would be done with foresight and planning. The activities they do outside of work and the accompanying expenditures are chosen with care. Choosing one thing will negate or put off another activity until the following month perhaps. So when they make the decision to join the informal group or go by themselves to a production of a play, they are hoping it is time and money well spent.
If theatres are, economically speaking, competing for spectators, Sandy and her husband are the catch everyone is after. Choice of play, reviews, word or mouth, subject matter, ticket price, will all play a part in their decision to go or not. I don't believe they would be specially inclined to like or dislike a production based on social or political context or trendy appeal. They are intelligent and open people and they live their lives with purpose, but their tastes and critique of theatre productions does not fall into a steadfast category.
For the director or actor who thinks or works like me, Sandy and her husband are who we "aim" the actions of the play towards - not in the sense of a "middle ground" or non-conformist, non-offensive appeal, but in the sense of one spectator, one action of clarity.
It is with great kindness and appreciation that I write and dedicate this post about and to them.
And if they are reading I say that thank you on behalf of all our theatres.
Sandy and her husband are modest and prudent people, smart and caring. Sandy works with me and her husband owns a small business. He is a true small business owner. By that I mean he doesn't assume he is supposed to get rich beyond his wildest dreams just because he owns a business. He assumes he will make a modest or decent living. He has kept the business for many years based on loyalty, hard work, good work and respect all around. Sandy and her husband own their home, nothing fancy, simple middle class midtown long time residents. Sandy enjoys typical pursuits in her spare time, gardening, reading, occasional travel, social time with friends, and cooking.
In the realm of "people who go to every production anywhere anytime" and "people who never go and don't even know that theatre exists," Sandy and her husband are the average Jane and Joe. Whereas there are people who know everything about production and theatre and those who are clueless, Sandy and her husband are "everywoman" and "everyman." Sandy and her husband are as "ordinary" as they come - and I mean that in the best and most meaningful sense of that term.
With ticket prices to theatres usually beginning at about eighteen dollars per person, it is easy to imagine Sandy and her husband spending fifty dollars or more if they go, and have a drink or snack before or after the show. With dinner included the price easily goes to one-hundred or more. For Sandy and her husband, this is affordable but would be done with foresight and planning. The activities they do outside of work and the accompanying expenditures are chosen with care. Choosing one thing will negate or put off another activity until the following month perhaps. So when they make the decision to join the informal group or go by themselves to a production of a play, they are hoping it is time and money well spent.
If theatres are, economically speaking, competing for spectators, Sandy and her husband are the catch everyone is after. Choice of play, reviews, word or mouth, subject matter, ticket price, will all play a part in their decision to go or not. I don't believe they would be specially inclined to like or dislike a production based on social or political context or trendy appeal. They are intelligent and open people and they live their lives with purpose, but their tastes and critique of theatre productions does not fall into a steadfast category.
For the director or actor who thinks or works like me, Sandy and her husband are who we "aim" the actions of the play towards - not in the sense of a "middle ground" or non-conformist, non-offensive appeal, but in the sense of one spectator, one action of clarity.
It is with great kindness and appreciation that I write and dedicate this post about and to them.
And if they are reading I say that thank you on behalf of all our theatres.
Preparing for "The Man"
As in Stan the Man. Konstantine Stanislavsky. Tonight will be the first of three presentations on his life and work (see Stanislavsky Summer post).
Saturday, June 6, 2009
A Book - The Sacred Balance, by David Suzuki
The Sacred Balance, rediscovering our place in nature, is a book by David Suzuki. It is one of the books that has been influential to me in posing acting and theatre in the realm of nature, a biological and ecological viewpoint and understanding. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disregarding the fact that theatre contains many elements, many viewpoints, nor am I intending to say it is or should be an exact recreation of life as in realism. But I am saying that theatre, at its best, given its own set of logics, the pretend, the contrived setting and circumstance, the ritual of spectator and performer, has a biological base still with the actor as core as well as a system of life and behavior, its ecology, in the movements and interactions of those actors in the particular environment. In order to understand it, and work with, explore it and use it to help create noteworthy productions, I try and understand the elements individually and collectively. Each day of working on it is like starting from scratch again, trying, as I have suggested in recent posts, to use a questioning system that is simple, that is just "trying to put two and two together." This means observing, trying, thinking, asking questions, waiting, concluding, starting over, trying again, etc. The fun is in the work, in the process, of seeing the activity, the growth, the change. There is never a point or a feeling of having understood completely or reached the zenith. There have been no ultimate ways as of yet for me. Each human, each actor presents a new set of trial and error for me, and in combinations it multiplies. My own body and mind is its own distinctive challenge as well, to learn with it, to prepare, to perform with it. Each time, I ask anew, who am I, who are we, what will we perform, how and why? This is how I understood it from my theatrical ancestors, Stanislavsky, Vahkatangov, Meyerhold, Grotowski. This is how I learned it from my teacher, Ellermann. This is how I tried it and recognized it with my peers, too numerous to name, and eventually with my students.
Chapter two of A Sacred Balance is called The Breath of All Green Things. The subject is air and breath. The following is a quote from the beginning of the chapter:
"Air also embodies ideas in speech and language, in song, and in the sweet airs of music. In English, as in other languages, a web of words celebrates the sacred status of air. Look at how the word "spirit" expands from its Latin source, spiritus, meaning breath, air, into so many other lively meanings - the soul, the animating principle, intelligence, emotional vigor, liveliness, essence or distilled extract - each one in opposition to deadness and dullness. From the same root comes inspiration, which gives birth to a new idea, and expiration, which signals the end of life."
The chapter continues on with facts about why, how and what we breathe, and its fascinating.
Grotowski came to the conclusion that actors must breathe as actors breathe, meaning this is different from other disciplines and activities, and even then each actor themselves is a little different. But there was always the work of trying to understand different types of respiration and its relationship to movement and physical action, including speaking. In Actor's Gymnasium we have tried breathing techniques from yoga, singing, and other disciplines as well as having invented our own techniques through trial and error. We have explored its relationship and influence with posture, movement and rhythm. We have tried to recognize its place in the "beginning of an idea" and its "end of life." We have thought about how plays like The Cherry Orchard could conceivably begin with and end with a body simple laying still and breathing (or not) - breathe of air, music, rhythm. (See the post on Fantasy Productions). We have tried out various breath-sound and breath-language techniques and ideas. And we have tried to acknowledge breath as our biological basis on the stage. In Jean Louis Barrault's idea of "setting the silence ringing" he is referring to vibrations of sound, of movement, which convey thoughts, ideas, meanings. For him, these vibrations travel through "air" or through that space between performer and performer, performer and spectator.
Like all things in theatre, that we want to consider "good and healthy" and worthy of our work and intentions, we need to strive for and to keep, or make, the "air" a good quality, one that can give us life through breath, influence our behavior and propel us forward. We must recognize that what we exhale, as in say or do, is going to be passed on - it is a shared resource for sure as it takes only a second or two for that molecule I breathed in and out to get to you and then you breathe it in and out. It is part of our ecology.
Chapter two of A Sacred Balance is called The Breath of All Green Things. The subject is air and breath. The following is a quote from the beginning of the chapter:
"Air also embodies ideas in speech and language, in song, and in the sweet airs of music. In English, as in other languages, a web of words celebrates the sacred status of air. Look at how the word "spirit" expands from its Latin source, spiritus, meaning breath, air, into so many other lively meanings - the soul, the animating principle, intelligence, emotional vigor, liveliness, essence or distilled extract - each one in opposition to deadness and dullness. From the same root comes inspiration, which gives birth to a new idea, and expiration, which signals the end of life."
The chapter continues on with facts about why, how and what we breathe, and its fascinating.
Grotowski came to the conclusion that actors must breathe as actors breathe, meaning this is different from other disciplines and activities, and even then each actor themselves is a little different. But there was always the work of trying to understand different types of respiration and its relationship to movement and physical action, including speaking. In Actor's Gymnasium we have tried breathing techniques from yoga, singing, and other disciplines as well as having invented our own techniques through trial and error. We have explored its relationship and influence with posture, movement and rhythm. We have tried to recognize its place in the "beginning of an idea" and its "end of life." We have thought about how plays like The Cherry Orchard could conceivably begin with and end with a body simple laying still and breathing (or not) - breathe of air, music, rhythm. (See the post on Fantasy Productions). We have tried out various breath-sound and breath-language techniques and ideas. And we have tried to acknowledge breath as our biological basis on the stage. In Jean Louis Barrault's idea of "setting the silence ringing" he is referring to vibrations of sound, of movement, which convey thoughts, ideas, meanings. For him, these vibrations travel through "air" or through that space between performer and performer, performer and spectator.
Like all things in theatre, that we want to consider "good and healthy" and worthy of our work and intentions, we need to strive for and to keep, or make, the "air" a good quality, one that can give us life through breath, influence our behavior and propel us forward. We must recognize that what we exhale, as in say or do, is going to be passed on - it is a shared resource for sure as it takes only a second or two for that molecule I breathed in and out to get to you and then you breathe it in and out. It is part of our ecology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)